Debates

This House believes wild animals should not be kept in captivity

This House believes wild animals should not be kept in captivity

Zoos are premises for the captivity of animals, often in urban areas where many of the animals would not otherwise be found, with the intention of studying the animals and displaying them to the public at large. The predecessor of the zoo was the menagerie, which involved the captivity of birds typically for the entertainment of the aristocracy, and has a long history running back to ancient times. The first modern zoo evolved out of an aristocratic menagerie in Vienna in 1765. Many types of zoo now exist, from the petting zoos that encourage the public to get up and close with the animals to the large nature reserves that provide space for the animals to roam around within and most famously the large, urban zoos like the London Zoo which include elephants, lions and penguins and are usually notable tourist drawcards for the cities concerned. Proponents argue that zoos are beneficial both to the animals themselves, protecting endangered species with specific breeding programs, and the public, as an educational tool to increase both awareness and understanding. Opponents respond that the removal of wild animals from their habitat is wrong, that they should be left in their natural surroundings and not used as tools for public entertainment.

Counterpoint

Wild animals do not suffer in well-regulated, well-run zoos.
There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. The Animal Welfare Act, enacted by the United States in 1970, is a good example of a step that can be taken to ensure all animals are treated appropriately and not misused or harmed1. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should be shut down.1Grech, K. S. (2004). Detailed Discussion of the Laws Affecting Zoos. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Animal Legal and Historical Center:

Zoos encourage the use of animals as mere entertainment

Point

Adults and children visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for our own ends, however it impinges on their freedom or quality of life. Therefore zoos will encourage poor treatment of animals more generally. People do not go to zoos for educational reasons they simply go to be entertained and diverted by weird and wonderful creatures seen as objects of beauty or entertainment. Dale Marcelini, a zoo curator in Washington, conducted a study that found 'visitors spend less than 8 seconds per snake, and one minute per lion.'1Otherwise, 'most people preoccupied themselves with eating, resting and shopping…people treated the exhibits like wallpaper’ 1. As a form of education the zoo is deficient: the only way to understand an animal properly is to see it in its natural environment – the zoo gives a totally artificial and misleading view of the animal by isolating it from its ecosystem.

Counterpoint

Zoos do not encourage the use of animals as mere entertainment. This argument assumes that both the harm suffered by these animals is tremendous and the only value gained from zoos is human entertainment. However, the motives of the general public and the professional zoo keepers are not one and the same. Zoo keeping is a trained profession. Animals in the zoo have regular access to good food and vets on standby should they fall ill. This is a far more luxurious lifestyle than they would have in their natural habitat. Furthermore, within zoos animals have many benefits that wild animals are deprived of, from human understanding to biological study. To see zoos as pure entertainment is myopic.

States can have immigration regulations in place that protect and conserve the populations of wild animals

Point

States concerned with the protection and welfare of wild animals are able to close zoos, release the animals back into their natural habitats and thereafter enforce immigration regulation that would ensure they any live cargo entering the country would be searched and checked. If found to contain wild animals, they could be sent back to where they had arrived from and hopefully re-placed in their natural habitat. To cut supply would be inadvertently to reduce demand, and eventually ensure that the trade in live animals would cease, to the benefit of the wild animal populations themselves.

Counterpoint

Sending the trade underground is not the most effective means to ensure the protection and conservation of wild animals. A general populace with previous first-hand exposure to wild animals will not lose their appetite to them if zoos were closed, fostering a demand for a black market in the trade of live, wild animals. As such, the most effective means to protect and conserve the populations of wild animals is regulation of the zoos themselves, not restrictions on their very entry to the state. Furthermore, the release of previous-captive animals into their 'natural' habitats is not advisable, they are not fit to survive in an environment where food is not provided and predators not kept separate.

Wild animals belong in their natural habitat

Point

Animals belong in their natural habitat, in the wild. It is a breach of their natural rights to take them by force into captivity for our own purposes. They are 'prevented from gathering their own food, developing their own social orders and generally behaving in ways that are natural to them.'1 No matter how we may try to replicate their surrounding in a zoo, we will never achieve the full result. Predators need to hunt and taking from them their ability to do so by taming/caging/drugging them is beyond cruel. A study by the journal Science in 2008 found that 'Asian elephants in European zoos had a median lifespan of just 18.9 years compared to 41.7 years for wild elephants in an Asian logging camp.'2 Excessive human involvement in the food cycle has disrupted it considerably. Let nature take its course.1 Jamieson, D. (1985). Against Zoos. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Animal Rights Library:2Berhaupt, N. A. (2011, May 13). Zoos and animals in capitivity. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Times Union:

Counterpoint

The truth is that these claims are based around the logically-skewed ideas of animal rights groups. Their arguments have little or no factual basis/merit for we cannot measure animal happiness. We cannot really say that they would be best left in the wild. All we can do is review the information at hand. Domesticated animals; treated well, would you say they were unhappy? Well then how can we argue that taking animals out of the wild is wrong? We cannot. So rather than banning zoos, we should ensure that relevant safety measures are in place to ensure that these animals are as well looked after as possible. Human beings are part of the animal kingdom thus food cycle and our involvement is part of nature.

Zoos act as educational tools

Point

Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education. Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation. As long ago as 1898 the New York Zoological Society claimed to be taking 'measures to inform the public of the great decrease in animal life, to stimulate sentiment in favour of better protection and to co-operate with scientific bodies.'1 Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a means to inform the public at large about proper treatment of animals, how valuable they are to the ecological system and how they can contribute to their conservation. Such direct experience of varied and diffuse species will increase ecological awareness in a way that television or documentaries could only hope to do.1 Jamieson, D. (1985). Against Zoos. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Animal Rights Library:

Counterpoint

Zoos do not act as education tools, or if they do, they fail at the role. The average zoo-goer knows less about animals than those who claim an interest in animals, like fishermen, and only slightly more than those who claim no interest in animals at all1. Furthermore, we would not tolerate this view if it were placed on humans. We would not force a human to be subjected to inhumane treatment and captivity with the reasoning that they would be saving future humans. We have something that is called integrity. Everyone has it and there is no reason why animals should not be given this grace as well. We cannot subject an animal, against it wishes, to captivity and rationed foods by citing the future good for all animals. We should respect every animal, even those in zoos and not offer them up as sacrifice. The education lessons obtained from zoos could just as easily, and less inhumanely, be presented in the classroom1.1 Jamieson, D. (1985). Against Zoos. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Animal Rights Library:

Zoos help to protect endangered species

Point

One of the main functions of zoos is to breed endangered animals in captivity. If natural or human factors have made a species' own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention. There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them. The Australian Government, responding to the 90% drop in the Tasmanian Devil population, has precipitated a nationwide breeding program to ensure their future sustainability1. And as long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo. There is also, of course, a valid role for breeding in different environments such as large nature reserves. Nevertheless, zoos are unique in being able to balance public entertainment and therefore, income, with the needs of their inhabitants.1 Australian Government. (2003). Save the Tasmanian Devil. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Save the Tasmanian Devil Program:

Counterpoint

There are two problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species. First, they do not have a very high success rate – many species are going extinct each week despite the good intentions of some zoos. This is partly because a very small captive community of a species is more prone to inter-breeding and birth defects 1. Secondly, captive breeding to try to stave off extinction need not take place in the context of a zoo, where the public come to look at captive animals and (often) see them perform tricks. Captive breeding programmes should be undertaken in large nature reserves, not within the confines of a zoo. Lastly, breeding programmes also generate unwanted animals, in a herd of lions only a few males are required to service the females; this leads often to the sale of the excess males to inappropriate establishments 2.

Zoos permit longer, more fruitful scientific research

Point

Animals can and should be studied in the wild but they can be studied more closely, more rigorously, and over a more sustained period of time in captivity. 'Zoos support scientific research in at least three ways: they fund field research…employ scientists as member of zoo staffs and they make otherwise inaccessible animals available for study’ 1. For example, a 2011 study completed at zoos in the United Kingdom and United States of gorillas found that happiness can extend their life-expectancy by up to 11 years, a study that could only be carried out in an environment where zookeepers could observe them constantly 2. That understanding can now be taken and used to protect and conserve gorillas in captive and wild populations world-wide. Furthermore, the money raised by zoos can also be utilized to study not just the captive animals, but fund field research, as exemplified by the Smithsonian National Zoological Park 3.Therefore, zoos are the lesser evil in the wider campaign to fund animal conservation projects and ensure endangered animals do not become extinct for preventable reasons.

Counterpoint

Zoos do not permit longer, or more fruitful, scientific research. Behavioural research, as the research is termed, is felt by some to contribute little due to the unnatural habitat in which the animals are observed1. Environments are felt to 'trigger reactions', therefore there is 'no reason to believe that better, fuller or more accurate data can be obtained in predation-free environments than in natural habitats.'1As such, the Orangutan study carried out in 2011 is only relevant to captive populations, and potentially only the population at the zoos concerned. Research into animals (when it respects their rights and is not cruel or harmful) may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context of confinement and human entertainment.1 Jamieson, D. (1985). Against Zoos. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Animal Rights Library:

Curate this debate

Be a debatabase editor

Idebate needs editors from around the world to check, moderate and create content for debatabase and the site more generally. Editors are vital in making the site run smoothly and ensuring that debates are as informative as possible.